The San Diego County Water Authority has been holding workshops to inform its board members on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. At the October 24th meeting of the Imported Water Committee, Government Relations Manager Glenn Farrel discussed the timing and schedule for implementing the BDCP, as well as possible impediments to its timely implementation.
Glenn Farrel began by saying that he is often asked about the timing and schedule for when the Bay Delta Conservation Plan would become operational, so today he would be reviewing the implementation process.
“As the BDCP process becomes more complex, there tends to be less specificity on a schedule for actions,” he said, noting that there is no current official updated timeline available, and that the federal government shutdown has delayed release of the public review documents until mid-December. “Because there’s no official BDCP schedule or timeline that’s out there, stakeholders are left with their own expectations regarding the schedule and the process and largely base those expectations on common environmental review and permitting milestones for very large public works projects,” said Mr. Farrel. “There are key environmental review, permitting, engineering, design and construction milestones that remain before the project becomes operational.”
He then presented a slide of a graphic representing an approximation of the BDCP schedule, emphasizing it was just the staff’s approximation given what they know about the existing timeline and given what is known about common milestones in large public works projects. “This schedule plots a number of the key environmental review, permitting, engineering, design and construction actions on a timeline between now and roughly 2025.” He noted there is more certainty in the near term, but less so the farther you move down the timeline. “BDCP response to comments, that’s where we already become less clear and less certain about the schedule, and this becomes more of an approximation,” he said. “We also need to consider the potential of a federal government shutdown again in 2014, and in an election year, politics play a large role in terms of the schedule for response to comments and certification of EIR and the issuance of the Record of Decision on the EIS.”
The schedule anticipates certification of the EIR and the Record of Decision by the end of 2014, he said. Based on that, permits could be issued sometime in the middle of 2015, and engineering final design to occur sometime in 2015. Land acquisition and conveyance project construction is anticipated to begin in 2015, given the public pronouncements of having the project operational in 2025.
Chapter 6 of the administrative draft of the BDCP document identifies a number of additional significant permitting actions that may also be required for implementation of the BDCP, including water rights permits, clean water act permits, encroachment permits, coastal zone management permits, streambed alteration permits, and National Historic Preservation Act permits, he said. “A variety of different permits will likely need to be secured as the process moves forward, but it’s not like BDCP is not planning for these,” said Mr. Farrel. “Clearly they are planning for them, they anticipate the need for these permits and chapter 6 does outline their plan for securing the necessary permits.”
There are also additional regulatory actions that must occur for the BDCP to advance through implementation; some of them are statutory, he explained. “Under the Delta Reform Act SBX7-1 of 2009, the statute requires that there has to be approval from the State Water Resources Control Board on a new point of diversion, so the State Water Board under the statute has a separate responsibility to consider public trust considerations and approve any water project changes that affect the water quality control plan for the Delta, or the water rights permits for the State Water Project or the CVP,” said Mr. Farrel. “The State Water Board is statutorily tasked with developing flow criteria and establishing flow objectives for a number of priority tributaries in the Delta watershed by June 2018, and the remaining priority tributaries after that. So the water board process could take time, and it may impact operations of the BDCP and ultimately the yield from the project.”
Approval of the BDCP as part of the Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta Plan is another task that’s obligated under statute under the Delta Reform Act. “Under the Act, the DSC is charged with developing the Delta Plan to achieve the coequal goals, and if the BDCP meets the statutory criteria for establishing a habitat conservation plan under the federal ESA and an NCCP under the state ESA, then the DSC must incorporate the BDCP into the Delta Plan.” He noted that Appendix 3-I of the BDCP EIR/EIS provides an evaluation of the BDCP compliance with that 2009 statute.
Another action that must occur is the approval of amended SWP contracts or other finance mechanisms. “The existing state water contracts for those contractors electing to participate in the program would be required to be amended or replaced, or new mechanisms to finance the cost must be developed and implemented to account for the cost allocations,” he said.
There are a variety of opinions as to possible external factors that could hinder implementation of the BDCP. Mr. Farrel said that he would highlight a few of the possibilities, but emphasized that there’s no certainty that will materialize at this point. “These are simply opinions that have emerged from other stakeholders and other sources around the state,” he said. “There’s no certainty that any of these could occur.”
Development of a comprehensive finance plan including cost allocation: “We know that’s a factor that needs to be undertaken. On September 12, when we had the panel of economists here and Dr. Jerry Meral was here, that question was directly asked of Dr. Meral regarding the status of cost allocations, and there’s his response that indicates it will be well into next year before we’ll get some certainty, some sense of the cost allocation negotiations,” he said.
Public funding: “Substantial funding in the amount of $3.7 billion is anticipated for ecosystem restoration from the passage of two state water bonds that’s been identified by the BDCP,” said Mr. Farrel. “And approximately $3.9 billion is expected from the federal government. Those sources both remain uncertain, uncommitted, and in the case of the state, relies both on legislative and voter action in order for the funding to materialize. And if the federal and state funding sources don’t materialize in the amounts that have been identified by BDCP, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the project will be delayed but there could be additional pressure placed on the contractors to fund that restoration.”
Litigation: “Like any other major public works project, there’s a great potential for legal challenges to the state and federal environmental documents and to the state and federal ESA permits. … Clearly litigation would significantly delay the implementation process for BDCP.”
Actions by the state legislature: “Although there are no presently identified direct actions related to BDCP implementation, some observers have suggested that the legislature should have a role through legislative action,” said Mr. Farrel, noting that there was a September 22nd 2013 column in the Sacramento Bee that directly advocated for a more active role in the BDCP approval process by the state legislature. “The legislature does continue to have some indirect oversight and effect on the implementation process certainly through the consideration of water bonds and funding sources, and they also have oversight action through the state budget process available to them,” he added.
Action by the electorate: “Given the strong opposition to the BDCP, particularly from in-Delta sources and interests, there’s a possibility that there could be an active signature gathering effort that would be undertaken to place an initiative on a future ballot that could either propose to stop BDCP or add substantial new hurdles or challenges to implementation. That’s a potential; it’s very costly and would likely be difficult to succeed but it is a potential external factor that could affect BDCP.”
Delays to the implementation of the BDCP would be very costly, Mr. Farrel pointed out. “At a recent BDCP workshop held in the Coachella Valley, the consultant indicated that a three year delay in the BDCP implementation schedule would cost about $1.3 billion per year,” he said.
For more information:
- For the agenda, staff report, and meeting materials, see pages 350-429 of this document.
- Glen Farrel’s power point begins on page 123 of this document.
- Audio links are available on this page.
